swansont

You assertion suggests that these don’t occur at all, but my comment was associated with “variable” which was from a different quote. Or it indicates they started looking near the destination, i.e. the shipwreck, and the debris was found nearby (~1600 feet, according to the press conference that just concluded)

We’re not talking about a safety risk, though, and challenging for precision mapping implies that there is uncertainty in the location. “When you reach the bottom, you don’t really know where you are. The Titanic is somewhere at the bottom of the ocean, but it was so dark that the largest object was only 500 yards (1,500 feet) distant, and we spent 90 minutes searching for it.” So again, there is uncertainty in the location. “Rare occurrences known as benthic storms, which are typically associated with surface eddies, can also produce powerful, sporadic currents that can remove material from the seafloor.” “South of the bow section, the currents appear to be especially variable, shifting from northeast to northwest to southwest.” Variable is kinda the opposite of well-known These statements you missed were right before the bit you quoted.

Something that science neophytes often miss is that you can do “indirect” confirmations of scientific principles. In this case, you don’t have to measure the speed of light in different frames, since the invariance of c has implications. In the case Mordred has highlighted, it’s Lorentz invariance. Experimentalists can be quite clever in devising experiments where you can do a precision measurement, where you have this situation. e.g. you don’t have to directly measure the fine structure constant to place (rather stringent) limits on its variation in time.

“…Titan's estimated 96-hour oxygen supply, which includes oxygen tanks and equipment known as carbon dioxide scrubbers…” https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/titan-submersible-search-questions-1.6883870 The Apollo 1 situation was from pure oxygen in the cabin. Presumably the submersible started out with a normal ~80/20 nitrogen/oxygen mix

The submersible doesn’t go straight down. It’s not an elevator. Do you have any evidence that we know the ocean currents will be known? Over a depth of almost 4 km?

! Moderator Note Similar(almost identical) topics merged

If you combine and rewrite the equations in the form of a wave equation, you find the relation between these terms and the speed, and that leads to the conclusion that c is invariant. Because light waves are still light waves even if there is motion of the source p\or detector (e.g. your radio works even when your car is moving), and that would not be the case if the speed of the waves varied. Yes. And in modern terminology, that is called invariance. In 1905 (and in German) the phrasing was somewhat different.

Something that’s the same in all frames is invariant. Something that’s the same everywhere (and over time) in one frame is a constant. A constant current (which could be from charges at constant velocity) can exert a force.

Air in the tube? I doubt they use hollow-core fiber.

No, this is patently untrue. A charge at rest will exert a force on any other charge, and with Newtonian gravity, the same holds true for a mass at rest exerting a force on other masses. Rope tension, normal forces, and static friction are other examples of forces that can be present at zero velocity.

! Moderator Note This is enough to tell me you are unserious about discussing physics. Either you don’t understand relativity well enough to know that this is a flawed test and thus is irrelevant, or you do, and this is an argument in bad faith. Either way, we’re finished here. You’re free to ask questions to fill in the significant gaps in your knowledge, but no more preaching.

Winding and unwinding becomes far more difficult if you add other shapes, and now the cable connection has to pull even more mass, which is less streamlined , so there’s even more resistance. Not uncommon in the military. https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2023/06/missing-titanic-sub-isnt-the-first-to-use-game-controls-for-heavy-machinery/ There was a story a while back about the US navy designing a controller (I think it was for periscopes) that was clunky. The off-the-shelf solution worked much better. edit: https://www.geekwire.com/2017/u-s-navy-swapping-38000-periscope-joysticks-30-xbox-controllers-high-tech-submarines/

You’d have to unspool it fast enough that there’s slack, but not so fast it tangles up. And the connection (and fiber) has to be strong enough to pull the rest of the cable. Not sure you can do that with a >4 km cable.

Still not evidence of a hoax. It is evidence that whatever comprised the fireball was not a craft that landed in the yard, but it was already pointed out that there was no evidence tying the alleged sightings to the fireball, other than the possible activation of imagination gone wild.

! Moderator Note You are entitled to your opinion, but the rules are not optional, and your attempts to explain why you won’t follow them aren’t going to be persuasive.

They’re like veal. There are multiple mechanisms, according to one story I ran across. The main one is apparently release of weights by tipping the submersible to some angle (everyone gets on the same side and it lists)

I’m not sure how “deflections are different” doesn’t mean that the rays diverge. Dispersion necessarily means that the rays diverge.

They’re picking up banging sounds https://www.cnn.com/americas/live-news/titanic-missing-sub-oceangate-06-21-23/index.html

The thing is, I’m not sure what evidence there is that this is a hoax.

! Moderator Note Please review the rules of the forums, which you agreed to follow when you joined. https://www.scienceforums.net/guidelines/ This includes 2.1, “Be civil”

According to a CBS story about the sub you have to sign a waiver acknowledging that the sub is experimental and not certified by any regulatory agency before you go on the dive. part of that vid is embedded in a twitter post here https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/cbs-story-oceangate-missing-titanic-125815139.html

I know this is probably rhetorical, but we can’t know, without more detail. A properly-designed submersible would likely have a way to surface that didn’t rely on the main control. Maybe it did, but there was a leak that couldn’t be overcome by the ballast tanks. Maybe orcas got them.

It’s allegedly required for life to exist. Meaning that if it had a different value, we wouldn’t be here to discuss the issue. That doesn’t mean there’s a design. But maybe that base reality is also a simulation. How do you tell? Why does he have to be lying or mistaken? There are a few people who work on foundations of physics who might be obsessed with such issues. Why does this matter?

Can you provide a link or source that refers to this process? I see explanations that cite refraction, reflection and dispersion. I’m not aware of “color separation” as a physics phenomenon. When I Googled ‘“color separation” rainbow’ the second hit was this thread, which leads me to think it’s not a common expression in rainbow explanations. Which is why dispersion is usually cited.

I’m with Eise - you appear to be using “logic” to mean your ability to understand. IOW, argument from incredulity. The fact that you don’t understand something doesn’t make it wrong or chaotic.